Are most/all of the common negatives railed at communism just capitalist propaganda?

Political Philosophy
61

Thank you again for your response to my first comment. Unfortunately, I haven’t received your answers to the personal questions I asked you in my second and third posts.

I’ve reread all the posts in this thread. A lot of it is confusing and hard to understand, perhaps partly due to translation issues. Perhaps later I will address some of the opinions expressed there.
But, as I understand it, you strongly question the assertion that capitalism is the best socio-economic system. Presumably, to a large extent, this is because you see many of its shortcomings in practice, which is why you want to look for something better than it. And your thoughts are directed primarily toward communism, as the system proposed by Marx and the communists as an alternative to capitalism, one that would be free of its shortcomings and, moreover, possess many fine qualities that capitalism lacks and, presumably, cannot possess. To get ahead of myself, I’ll say right away that I, too, believe that Soviet socialism, in which I have lived my entire life, did indeed have a number of qualities and advantages that capitalism could never have. First and foremost, this is the absence of the exploitation of man by man in the production process. Thanks to the absence of a class of exploiters, capitalists, and landowners—and, as a result, the absence of such striking social and economic inequality among people and everything that stems from it. The opportunity for children from the families of ordinary workers (proletarians) and peasants to receive free education in schools, vocational schools, technical colleges, and universities. Millions of city dwellers received apartments from the state—free of charge. Utility bills were so low that people barely felt them in their budgets. Prices for consumer goods were almost equally affordable for all segments of the population thanks to state regulation.
I think that you are a young person, and knowing even those advantages of socialism listed here, being an honest, noble, and humane person, you cannot help but be interested in communism and strive to achieve the goals that communists set in their programs—goals they have already achieved to a considerable extent, even without having fully established communism itself. A noble and entirely moral stance. It would be illogical for a thinking, honest, and just person, seeing the shortcomings of the existing capitalist system (in which you, presumably, live) and the advantages of the communist one, not to strive to replace it with another—this communist one—which lacks the shortcomings of capitalism. I believe it is precisely for this reason that the communist idea has attracted and will continue to attract oppressed people, or simply decent people.

I believe that the main reason for your aspirations can be summed up in one word: the desire for justice. (By the way, again, jumping ahead, I will say that it was precisely this desire for justice that motivated me to join the Communist Party.)
I believe that it was precisely this desire that, in its time, sparked all social discontent, above all among the common people: protests, riots, uprisings, revolutions. But none of them led to a state structure that would be considered just. The main sign of this injustice has always been deep social and economic inequality, which manifested itself in the existence of the rich and the poor.

Sorry for what begins to play a political economy lecture, but this isn’t even the end of it. And I’m afraid they won’t let me through because of the long text. If you don’t mind this approach, I’ll continue after I hear your reaction. I still have a lot more to say. Part of it has already been written

62

This site indicates that your post is in response to my post, yet much of what you wrote seems intended for @unimportant.

That said, I’d be willing to discussion this topic with you. Let me know.

63

`Thank
you again for your response to my first comment. Unfortunately, I
haven’t received your answers to the personal questions I asked you
in my second and third posts.

I’ve reread all the posts
in this thread. A lot of it is confusing and hard to understand,
perhaps partly due to translation issues. Perhaps later I will
address some of the opinions expressed there.
But, as I
understand it, you strongly question the assertion that capitalism is
the best socio-economic system. Presumably, to a large extent, this
is because you see many of its shortcomings in practice, which is why
you want to look for something better than it. And your thoughts are
directed primarily toward communism, as the system proposed by Marx
and the communists as an alternative to capitalism, one that would be
free of its shortcomings and, moreover, possess many fine qualities
that capitalism lacks and, presumably, cannot possess. To get ahead
of myself, I’ll say right away that I, too, believe that Soviet
socialism, in which I have lived my entire life, did indeed have a
number of qualities and advantages that capitalism could never have.
First and foremost, this is the absence of the exploitation of man by
man in the production process. Thanks to the absence of a class of
exploiters, capitalists, and landowners—and, as a result, the
absence of such striking social and economic inequality among people
and everything that stems from it. The opportunity for children from
the families of ordinary workers (proletarians) and peasants to
receive free education in schools, vocational schools, technical
colleges, and universities. Millions of city dwellers received
apartments from the state—free of charge. Utility bills were so low
that people barely felt them in their budgets. Prices for consumer
goods were almost equally affordable for all segments of the
population thanks to state regulation.
I think that you are a
young person, and knowing even those advantages of socialism listed
here, being an honest, noble, and humane person, you cannot help but
be interested in communism and strive to achieve the goals that
communists set in their programs—goals they have already achieved
to a considerable extent, even without having fully established
communism itself. A noble and entirely moral stance. It would be
illogical for a thinking, honest, and just person, seeing the
shortcomings of the existing capitalist system (in which you,
presumably, live) and the advantages of the communist one, not to
strive to replace it with another—this communist one—which lacks
the shortcomings of capitalism. I believe it is precisely for this
reason that the communist idea has attracted and will continue to
attract oppressed people, or simply decent people.

I
believe that the main reason for your aspirations can be summed up in
one word: the desire for justice. (By the way, again, jumping ahead,
I will say that it was precisely this desire for justice that
motivated me to join the Communist Party.)
I believe that it was
precisely this desire that, in its time, sparked all social
discontent, above all among the common people: protests, riots,
uprisings, revolutions. But none of them led to a state structure
that would be considered just. The main sign of this injustice has
always been deep social and economic inequality, which manifested
itself in the existence of the rich and the poor.

Sorry
for what sounds like a political economy lecture, but this isn’t
even the end of it. And I’m afraid they won’t let me through
because of the long text. If you don’t mind this approach, I’ll
continue after I hear your reaction. I still have a lot more to say.
Part of it has already been written`

64

Thank you for your message.

You are right — part of my comment was actually intended for the original author of the post. The forum structure can be a bit confusing.

However, I would also be glad to discuss this topic with you.

65

@WeSee. I’ve already told you that I’m okay with you joining the discussion. But I haven’t seen a response from you yet?

66

Thank you for your insight, @Flying. I am just curious as it’s been a long time since the Soviet Union, just how old are you now? It’s great to have “old-timers” on a forum like this.

I fear that with time passing the nostalgia for the Soviet system will replace the real history, which, as you say, wasn’t as horrible as some might think, yet still was a dictatorship. I had the opportunity to see as a child a glimpse of East Germany (East Berlin) and later had the chance to visit a Russian family in Moscow during the last year of the Soviet Union. The warmth and friendliness of the Muscovites made me ponder just why so nice people can then have such a system (that then hardly anybody believed in).

I think the real tragedy is that when the Soviet system collapsed, the Soviet leadership could control the collapse without bloodshed (apart from the conflict between the Azeris and Armenians), yet now that “civil war”, just like what happened in Yugoslavia when it collapsed, is fought between Ukraine and Russia with soldiers dying that were not even born during the Soviet Union, even if the ideology has changed to the old nationalism. The inability for Russia to create the “Commonwealth of Independent States” and then exist peacefully like the UK is the sad part here.

I’ve noticed that in an American philosophy forum like this one Marxism is eagerly discussed, but if I refer to “Marxism-Leninism”, the enthusiasm disappears. As you said well, the issue is justice and the inequality between the rich and the poor, a political issue that we can trace back to Antiquity like the Gracchi brothers in the Roman Republic.

Yet I think that the effects of the Marxist theory itself should be discussed in just why the experiment has lead to dictatorships. I think that when Marxism emphasizes too much the class struggle being violent and depicts a class enemy, this creates an environment where too easily the idea of simply killing the rich people is what it comes down to. Be they the kulaks or somebody. That creates the need for the security system that is there to fight the counter-revolutionaries etc. and leads in the end to Protelariat being represented by one man who has absolute power. We shouldn’t forget the ideological role that the KGB had as the vanguard of the revolution.

And finally I’d like to ask from you, what do you think of the China of today and the Chinese Communist Party?

Hope you find the time to answer my many questions.

67

@SSU Thank you for responding! The original poster who started this thread hasn’t replied at all. And my follow-up responses to his questions are largely directed at him personally, as you’ve probably noticed. But I don’t think that will prevent us from continuing our discussion about communism. I might try to reorganize my posts for you and others. Because, judging by the large number of posts in this thread, it interests many people. So I think they might be interested in the perspective on this issue of someone who lived in the Soviet Union, was a member of the CPSU, and has spent his entire life reflecting on this system. (I am already 75 years old.)
I’ll go through my previously written responses today or tomorrow and publish them for you; perhaps they’ll be of interest to others as well. Maybe this will become a separate thread, if the administrators allow it.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

68

@SSU. Due to a lack of time, I haven’t yet been able to revise my comment—originally intended for Nevazhny (which, for some reason, doesn’t quite sit right with me)—into a post for a wider audience and for you personally. This includes answering your questions.
I’ll write soon.
And I’ve also become interested in the question of China: it’s as if the Communist Party is in power—
and such progress!? Why couldn’t the USSR do the same?! I didn’t know about Xi Jinping’s speech; I’ll definitely check it out. But I’ve had one answer for a long time, and I think that’s the main thing: I figured that there must be private ownership of the means of production there. Later I found out that this is indeed the case, to 70%. And that’s capitalism. And by no means communism, or even socialism.
But there’s no doubt that the so-called Communist Party of China has managed to very skillfully combine its authoritarian rule with capitalism. (I explained why “so-called” above.)
But I’m also curious to learn more about the mechanics of China’s success. There are, of course, issues with the national question and with democracy. But I’m especially curious to know what the Chinese people themselves think about democracy? Here’s a nearly philosophical question: what is missing for the Chinese people to live comfortably? Maybe they’re completely satisfied with their lives and don’t really want to trade them for democracy? After all, according to Marxist dialectics, matter is primary. Being determines consciousness. So perhaps their existence is so good that their consciousness does not object to the system?

69

I was waiting for @unimportant to respond to you and for your response in return.

How is this an issue with Marxist theory in and of itself?

70

@ unimportant
@ ssu
It seems they didn’t delete the first part of the comment because it was too long, so, as promised,
I’m posting the continuation of the previous one, which is even more like a lecture on political economy

Part 2 of the Comment on Communism

The greatest minds of humanity have pondered the causes of such injustice and sought a way out of this situation. One of them was K. Marx.
He analyzed the system of capitalist production (the book Capital), in which production is of a social nature (in which all workers participate), while the appropriation of its results is of a private nature. It is regulated by the private owner of the enterprise. At the same time, it seems to be generally accepted that Marx is credited with the discovery of so-called surplus value, which this owner—the capitalist—appropriates for himself. And this situation was termed the exploitation of man by man. And so, the logical and inevitable conclusion from this observation led to the idea: it would be entirely fair to distribute this surplus value among all the workers, who, incidentally, were the very ones who created it through their own, often excessively arduous, labor. And this will only be possible when these enterprises belong to those who work there, that is, to all the—currently hired—workers. This will be called social ownership of the means of production. And in this way, the very economic basis of the exploitation of man by man, and all the inequality and injustice stemming from it, will be destroyed. The age-old dream of humanity! I think this was one of Marx’s main ideas in his communist theory.

But here, I think it is appropriate to mention what I would call an almost philosophical—or rather, dialectical—aspect of the issue. And as is well known, Marx considered dialectics to be a powerful science. Namely, dialectics, among other things, asserts that every phenomenon rarely exists on its own, independently. It is, as a rule, interconnected with other aspects of its essence. And in a sphere such as the economy and production, there are more than enough of such connections. You solve the problem of exploitation by removing its private owner from production and think that everything else that remains after this act will function as before? One might object: why didn’t he take that into account? He did say that the very fact of liberation from exploitation would, on the contrary, change the attitude toward labor for the better. Because now it is ours. What it will mean for it to become “ours” and what will come of it will be discussed below.

And he took it into account roughly as follows.
He believed that such a social form of ownership of the means of production would be not only significantly fairer, but, most importantly, more efficient than the private capitalist form, under which the so-called relations of production already hinder the development of the productive forces. For now every worker will be economically, materially, and morally invested in the success of the enterprise. For his wages would depend directly on this, and these wages would naturally increase by the amount of the surplus value he, as a worker, produces.

Of course, the common people didn’t give much thought to these economic advantages of such a mode of production. They joined the revolution for the sake of justice, and they were told that to achieve this, they must build communism.

That may well be so, but who would voluntarily give up what is theirs? So it must be taken by force. And that force is the proletariat and the poor peasantry—the working people. There you have it: the necessity of the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. . Power must be seized, and then—a civil war to destroy the exploiting classes, who will inevitably defend their property and themselves. . But it was no longer the proletariat that dictated, but the Communist Party of the Bolsheviks. Millions of peasants also fell into this meat grinder, because they were, albeit small-scale, still private owners of the means of production—the land and everything it yields. And most importantly, what the communists fought for and promised—the land, and the plants and factories—they took. They became “people’s property”—read: state property—and people already viewed them as belonging to no one. People’s attitude toward them had become that of treating them as nobody’s property. Not as Marx had envisioned—as their own.
That was Marx’s mistake. How could one not mention this?
And so began the construction not of the fully promised communism, but of its transitional stage—socialism.

Once again, I apologize for the political economy, but this is my personal view of such political economy, stemming, above all, from your desire to learn more about communism.

Part 3 will follow (if it isn’t deleted)

71

@WeSee
“How could this be a problem for Marxist theory itself?”
I’ll answer briefly: in no way.
I’m not saying that this has become a problem for Marxist theory. This will become clear in the second part of this post, which I published a few hours ago. For now, I’ll just say that, in my opinion, one of the main ideas of Marxist theory was the idea of creating a just society where there would be no rich or poor. And Marx, having discovered the phenomenon of surplus value in the capitalist economy, showed that this is the main source of the rich getting richer. And it is a consequence of private ownership of the means of production. He then developed a theory on what to do about it.
You can read about this in the next part of my comment.

72

If you aren’t hungry, you feel safe and happy with your life, why would you care what kind of establishment rules you? If you live under a democratic system or lets say under an absolutist monarch, but are content, what would be the problem? Economy is primary, as Marx put it.

The Chinese understood the importance of economy. As Deng Xiaoping said: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice, it is a good cat.” And now Xi Jinping talks about China’s Marxism being practical, not tied by ideological constraints. And naturally things are different from the time that Marx lived, so ideologies can transform.

I think this was the crucial problem that the Soviet Union didn’t overcome. First, the Soviet Union and present Russia, are constructed on an Empire, which makes the country truly multicultural. This creates a fundamental problem of nationhood as not all people are Russians. Actually China has a similar problem. Then there was the problem of economy as the planned economy simply didn’t work (and oil prices were low back then). What Gorbachev attempted was giving BOTH political freedom and attempting economic development…and also attempted to take away the vodka-bottle from the Russian men (which was a terrible move, only the last czar had implemented a similar policy).

The effect of Glasnost was important. I remember myself how huge this was as a teen when a couple of Soviet researchers visited my family. The first time they where at our place (my parents were academic researchers) the discussion was about virology and family. And nothing else. The next time the Soviets didn’t have to visit in pairs Western foreigners (to check each other) and nearly the first thing that the same Russian professor said was “Did you know that Stalin killed my father?” The damn had burst, Russians could freely talk about their reality. It nearly burst also in China with Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, but in the end it didn’t as the Chinese experienced historical economic growth and living standards improved.

It is an interesting question if Russia could have done something similar. Because back then Westerners and especially Americans believed that by opening China to the global markets, they would also politically transform. The Chinese Communist Party didn’t do that.